houses and tenements, and take refuge in villages as fortifications against invaders where they described themselves, as I have seen in their affidavits, in the following manner; " We, (mentioning their names) formerly of Armagh, weavers, now of no fixed place of abode or means of living," &c. In many instances this banditti of persecution threw down the houses of the tenantry, or what they call racked the house, so that the family must fly or be buried in the grave of their own cabin. The extent of the murders that have been committed by this atrocious and rebellious banditti, I have heard; but have not heard them so ascertained as to state them to this House, but from all the enquiries I could make, I collect that the Catholic inhabitants of Armagh, have been actually put out of the protection of the law; that the magistrates have been supine or partial, and that the horrid banditti has met with complete success, and from the magistracy with very little discouragement. This horrid persecution, this abominable barbarity, and this general extermination, have been acknowledged by the magistrates, who, finding the evil had now proceeded to so shameful an excess, that it at length obliged themselves to cry out against it, came to the following resolution, which is an evidence of the designs of the insurgents, and of their success. The magistrates of Armagh on the 28th of December (thirty of them in number) came to the following resolution" Resolved, that it appears to this meeting, that the county of Armagh is at this moment in a state of uncommon disorder; that the Roman Catholic inhabitants are grievously oppressed by lawless persons unknown, who attack and plunder their houses by night, and threaten them with instant destruction, unless they abandon immediately their lands and habitations." It was said by the mover of the resolutions, that of the Defenders, multitudes had been hanged, multitudes had been put to death on the field, and that they were suppressed, though they were not extinguished; but with regard to the outrages of the Orange-men, he could make no such boast, but on the contrary, they have met with impunity, and success, and triumph; they have triumphed over the law; they have triumphed over the magistrates; and they have triumphed over the people; here persecution, rebellion, inquisition, murder, robbery, devastation and extermination have been entirely victorious.

The passing over these offences in the statement introducing the resolutions, would be of little moment, if they were not also passed over in the resolutions themselves; the resolutions describe four different kinds of offences; attempts to assassinate magistrates; 2d, to murder witnesses; 3d, to

plunder houses; 4th, to seize, by force, the arms of His Majesty's subjects: but of attempts to seize the persons of His Majesty's subjects, and to force them to abandon their lands and habitations, the resolutions say not one syllable; crimes not less great, nor less notorious, and more emphatically calling for the interposition of the state, because they had triumphed over the supineness of the magistracy, and had no chance of being checked, but by the interposition of government or Parliament. In the other resolution, which describes that kind of armed insurgency, which the magistracy are to prevent by extraordinary exertions, the crime of driving away His Majesty's subjects, is also omitted; the words are, "That from the many attempts which have been made on the houses of individuals, by large bodies of armed insurgents, for the purpose of taking arms and money by force, and murdering those who had spirit to enforce the law, or give information against offenders, it will be necessary to give the magistrates enlarged powers.' Attempts made on the houses of the individual to rob or take arms; attempts to murder witnesses; these are the offences which attract your notice; but the attempt to exterminate His Majesty's subjects; attempts in part completed, which are very different from seizing arms, or taking money, or murdering witnesses; these attempts and perpetrations, as notorious as horrible, appear to be neither in the contemplation of the resolutions, nor of the member who moved them. Thus the silence of the resolutions may become a hint to the supineness of the magistracy, and where they should have counteracted, their partiality may give it countenance. On a further examination of the resolutions, I find them not merely defective in describing the offence, but they seem to me to have omitted the remedy; certainly the giving magistrates further powers to search for arms and ammunition, or to prevent from assembling or meeting, bodies of men assembling for the purpose of taking arms and money, or murdering witnesses; or the giving the magistrates enlarged power to seize vagabonds for the fleet or army, does not go to the case of Armagh, where the subjects complain that they have been seized as deserters, falsely and illegally, through the supineness or partiality, or connivance of the magistrates; and through the same supineness, to say no worse, have been by force driven with impunity from their lands and habitations; many of the weavers of Armagh, have at this moment sworn affidavits against the magistrates. To give the magistrates extraordinary powers as the means of redressing the complainants, seems to me, however, a remedy for some part of the kingdom, but a very inadequate one

for another. In short, the measure of the right honourable gentleman, in its present shape, does not go to the whole of the situation of the country; it does not go to redress the north; it is therefore a defective measure; it is a partial description of the outrages of the kingdom, and a partial remedy; it proposes to suspend the operation of the constitution with a view to produce peace, leaving at the same time, in one great county, violence and insurrection in a state of triumph; it leaves the families of Armagh, whom a violent mob, and a supine magistracy have caused to abandon their dwellings; it leaves them without any certainty of redress, so that they may carry themselves and families, and tales of woe, to their brethren in the other parts of the kingdom, and spread the flames of discontent and spirit of retaliation, notwithstanding the member's bills and resolutions.

On a principle, therefore, that it is necessary for the redress of that description of subjects, who have suffered in Armagh, that the magistrates should be called upon to act for the protection of the subject, and that the county should be obliged to pay those inhabitants, who have been aggrieved, full compensation for all their losses, charges and distresses, I take the liberty to suggest to the right honourable member, amendments which I do not move, because he ought to move them, and make them his own measure.

The amendments I suggest are-after the words " To seize by force of arms;" to add, "and also the persons of His Majesty's subjects, and to force them to abandon their lands and habitations ;" and in the third resolution, after the words "murdering those who had spirit to give information ;" to add, "also attempting to seize the persons, and obliging His Majesty's subjects by force, to abandon their lands and habitations."

The amendment was opposed by Mr. Pelham, (secretary), the Attorney-general, Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald, Mr. Corry, and Sir John Blaquiere. They stated, that they were convinced of the impartiality with which the powers sought for would be exercised, and this without reference to the religious principles of either party, whether Protestant or Catholic. The disturbed state of the country required such new measures as these to be adopted for the protection of His Majesty's loyal subjects.

Mr. William Smith (afterwards one of the Barons of the Exchequer), expressed himself disposed to think the measure would appear more unexceptionable if the amendment was adopted. The resolutions would then be more perfect than they stood at present. In his opinion the government would not be disposed to favour one species of treason, but would equally punish the crimes of all classes and all parties.

Mr. GRATTAN, in reply, said that the right honourable member had admitted the propriety of the amendment, but objects to the adoption, because it would be a confession of the original error and partiality of his resolution. The fact of partiality is apparent on the face of the resolutions, whether the member adopts the amendment or not; but if he wishes to avoid the surmise of the intention of partiality, he cannot do better than accede to an amendment, which makes his resolution perfectly impartial. The member will not say that every thing which is fixed in the meetings of ministers is to be adhered to, right or wrong, as sacred and inviolable, on a point of pride, lest they should make a public admission of their own fallibility; however, the member has attempted to object to the amendment, after having admitted its propriety, as going into the detail of insurgency; - his resolution has done so, and since he has thought proper to go into the detail, he should have taken care that his detail should have been accurate. He has attempted to reduce the insurrection of Ireland under certain genera, and one genus he has entirely omitted a genus as great as any of the others, and more successful; the same omission has attended him in his statement, and in his remedy; but a right honourable gentleman has said, the hostility in Armagh does not go to affect the government. Indeed! the persecution of one entire description of his Majesty's subjects, the extermination of them the rising up, not against the houses of certain individuals, but of a whole tribe. Does the member mean, that such an offence does not affect the government? What is treason? Is not the rising up, and levelling enclosures or chapels held to be high treason; the extermination of his Majesty's subjects · - what is that? Does not that affect the government? gentlemen say not. What! putting the subject out of the protection of the law, does not that go to affect the government? Riot, rebellion, persecution, massacre, and extermination! These unfortunate people emigrate, and carry with them their tales of woe, and their family to their brothers in the other parts of the kingdom. May not the consequences of that go to the government, and every person inhabiting Catholic countries? - I must own, I know of no question which does so much go to affect government. It has been objected to this amendment, that it makes a religious distinction; the contrary. The resolutions of the right honourable member make a religious distinction, and we make the discovery; his resolutions omit the outrages committed against Catholics; and we propose to include them; observing at the same time, that such a proposal appears so much

the more necessary, from what fell from an honourable gentleman, a magistrate of the county of Armagh, who dissenting from every other person, has spoken of the use of what he calls Orange-men, of the services rendered by these murderers; this atrocious banditti, the northern rebels, whose barbarity exceeds that of modern times, and brings back the recollection of ancient ferocity and bloodshed. I ask gentlemen who have heard the magistrate apologize for such murderers, whether the increasing the power of the magistracy will be of itself sufficient to redress the sufferings of the northern Catholics?

I must, therefore, persist in recommending to the right honourable gentleman my amendments, which, if he persists to refuse, I must see how vain it is for me to move them; lamenting at the same time, that he should have lost an opportunity of so clearly displaying, what I must presume he wishes — impartiality and justice.

The amendments were rejected and the resolutions were passed in their original form, and leave was given to bring in a bill grounded upon them.

INSURRECTION BILL.

MR. GRATTAN MOVES THE RE-COMMITTAL OF THE INSURRECTION BILL.

February 29. 1796.

ON the preceding day, the insurrection bill was read a second time, when Sir L. Parsons stated his objections to it. at length; he dwelt much upon the poverty and the wretched state of the Irish peasantry; he conceived that an enquiry should have been instituted into the causes of their grievances and discontents, before such a severe measure was adopted.

}

Mr. A. Browne coincided in this opinion; the discontents of the country were not likely to be removed by this bill, which he considered was nothing else but a system of terror. Laws of such a criminal nature as this were the symptoms of a weak government.” Mr. R. Stewart (afterwards Lord Castlereagh), strongly objected to the representations that had been made by the gentlemen of the opposition; they were an overcharged picture of imaginary calamities; the bill was necessary to prevent the evils that threatened the subversion of the state; at present, trial and conviction by a jury was scarcely practicable in a country where such disturbances existed. Mr. Curran defended the conduct of the